Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/2/04 06:08 PM, iamrob wrote: Also what the fuck do you mean rambus memory? It is going to use new XDR ram.

Which is being developed by Rambus. Are you confusing Rambus with RDRAM?

It's really a toss up. Microsoft's Xbox 2 is going to have more games because of the simplicity microsoft is creating with the software SDK's. Namely the XNA system they are creating. PS3 on the other hand is going to be hard to develop because it is going to be an entirely different processor, again. The first year you will see a good weight behind the Xbox 2 system because of decreased production times and a possibility to reach the graphical limits of the system earlier on.

PS3 on the other hand is going to include the 'cell' technology that Sony, Toshiba, and IBM have been developing and putting a shitload of money. This is going to be an evolution of technology integration. The cell technology is being built for broadband and for the internet. The PS3 is also going to have more storage capabilites then the XBox 2. The Blu-Ray disc that Toshiba and Sony have been developing is going to provide a large amount of data, up to 50gb, if not more if more layers are possible. This storage will be necesary for the high resolution textures that will be needed in order to have the best looking picture on high definition systems.

As for technological, both of these systems will be insane. Graphics will just be so gorgeous. Let me reiterate, both systems are going to have sick graphics.

For me, I am going to stick with Xbox 2. Yes it could possibly technologically inferior, but who cares if a game comes in 2 disks instead of 1? I prefer the developers of the Xbox 2 system. Rare, Bigbluebox, and many companies Microsoft has deal's with.

Marijuana should be regulated by the government. Both sides probably are going to kill me on this, though. What would happen if weed was legalized, heavy fines were put on selling to minors or getting weed for minors, and a good amount of taxes to help get people that want it. It would make a lot of sense. Why won't it happen? Some people act like total dumbasses on it, just like alcohol, and unlike alcohol, the external effects of marijuana can be hidden.

As for me, I don't smoke. I was also one of the people that didn't enjoy it that much. I just thought about stuff, while staring at a very small detail and analyzing everything. It was cool though.

At 9/2/04 05:27 PM, grand_retard wrote: Religion works with fiction.

Science works with facts.

You can’t say which is stronger.

I'd rephrase that to...

Religion works with faith.

Science works with facts.

I was just thinking of some good bumper sticker slogans. How about "Attack Terrorists, Not Nations" Any more?

Google News!

At 8/28/04 09:01 AM, mercuryeagle wrote:

At 8/28/04 06:38 AM, little_bald_kid wrote: You don't know shit.

Come to England and I'll show you a REAL MAN'S Gas price!

Too true, it costs at least 4 times as much to buy it here in the UK than the US. That's what I call unfair.

But you guys aren't suffering from sub-urban sprawl, or at least not to the degree of the United States.

What has the UN done? Nothing,

Stand corrected about UN doing nothing...

There have been recent reports that there is genocide in the Darfur Region in Sudan. The UN has yet to call it genocide, instead they are using milder terms like 'ethnic cleansing.' Why hasn't the world tried to stop this? Over 50,000 have been killed and 1.2 million are homeless.

The Janjaweed, a militia sponsored by the Sudanese government, has been attacking this small area ever since conflict arised in February 2003. Now villages are being burnt, quran's being desecrated, villagers raped, and food supplies destroyed. What has the UN done? Nothing, they refuse to call it Genocide. What has America done? Nothing, Congress is calling it genocide and are trying to get Bush to consider what is happening in Sudan genocide.

Now, where has the press been the past year on this topic?

Probably, I think he went off his medication without a doctor's notice.

At 8/23/04 05:05 PM, MuShrOomBastard wrote: But you are wrong. We don't need government to organize. We organize every day without the government. When we got a common purpose

By walking through the woods or by travelling on roads funded by the government?

At 8/23/04 03:59 PM, MuShrOomBastard wrote: Now, do you think that government is necessery in order for us to organize?

In America, yes. In other places where the cultures are not being constantly mixed, possibly not.

At 8/23/04 03:22 PM, Maus wrote: What did you think anarchy was?

I meant the transition period between two different types of governments. The way I said it was a lot quicker, though grammatically incorrect. Still got the point acrossed.

To bring the dread out of other topics, I will create an anarchy topic. Personally I think believing anarchy would work for longer then a year is just plain ludicrous. Anarchy is only an interim type of government. People would collect together and create a sort of political party. These parties would then have a strong power in the social realm because of the massive amounts of people in the party. What would happen if these parties have conflicting view points? Think about it, and yes mushroombastard go ahead and make your point why anarchy is so good.

MuShrOomBastard, anarchy would only create another government. From anarchy, people would collect together with similar ideas. I think that is all that is needed to let you think about how anarchy would only be an interim government. If not, create a thread about anarchy and prove your point there.

d4rkn1t3, I'm sorry to tell but all news sources are biased. There is no possible way that it cannot be biased. There are always two sides of the story, two emotions, and two cultures. The best way to gain knowledge is to read ALL of the sources and decipher the most probable reason and cause. The TV can be used as a good learning tool, so don't bash it as harshly as you are doing. With that, it should be used only as a tool and not as a complete solution.

At 8/22/04 07:20 PM, Highdetailgrotesque wrote: i hate to make yet another religion-based thread, but wtf is with this? i noticed when someone says "goddamn," they don't censor "damn," but they do censor "god." that is bias bullshit.

The majority of people are still religious. If companies did not censor it, then the people would be fed up and turn the channel. It is all about economics. So you can fuck yourself in your asshole before you go off on a tangent without thinking about why it occurs the way that it does.

At 8/22/04 06:52 AM, -flux- wrote: how can you people stand to see your children being told what to think?

It will be told to them one way or another though, right? I mean seriously all that you are currently thinking right now is mainly regurgetated thoughts of other people. Did you come up with the idea of socialism? Probably not.

At 8/21/04 12:24 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: OH God no, don't let it be true, does he not respect me?
*runs away crying*

Let's cry together
*weeps*

At 8/19/04 08:31 PM, Spookshow wrote: Here's a question I just thought of:

What's the reason behind everyones name?

I didn't want to post this in General due to the lower IQ count.

*crickets*

It's a combination of combining people but keeping people's identities seperate. It's easy to remember John, but would it be so easy to remember 1958432156?

I guess here we like to kiss each other's asses, I don't know. *shrugs* Or we try to be like politicians, which we then be we ARE trying to kiss each other's asses.

At 8/19/04 12:28 PM, evilfairy265 wrote: aaugh sorry about the messed up HTML stuff

You'll get used to it, just have : in front of a paragraph and it automatically "quotes" it for you.

So now I'm wondering who thinks there should be a law against abortion?

I for one do not think there should be a law against abortion except for late-term abortions. That is unless the mother's life is at sake, then later-terms should be allowed only on that context.

Imagine by John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

At 8/18/04 08:24 PM, truthbetold wrote: interesting about the pro life thing. The bible stated that since man was made in gods image, anyone who kills a man shall be killed himself. So wouldn't that person get the death penalty too?

Well, it's not the man that's killing him. It is a combination of injecting various amounts of lethal drugs that kills him.

"That gun didn't kill that person, the bullet did."

At 8/18/04 07:45 PM, PruneTracy wrote: Sorry Proteus, Maybe I have to spell it out for you.

He's getting slow isn't he?

Anyways, there will probably be another "Florida incident" in this election if Bush loses by a small margin. Dam that was so retarded.

At 8/17/04 10:55 PM, Spookshow wrote: Here's a good question. Isn't the uneccessary death of ANYTHING considered murder?

Caviar anyone?

What about the places that does not have the capability to be suitable for farmland but is suitable for cattle and dairy?

At 8/17/04 11:50 AM, mrpoppinfresh wrote: Most, if not all, of you here bitchin' against abortion are guys, and most of you are also underaged and it's pretty safe to say your'e still virgins. Now, a man who has never had sex is entitled to his opinon, but honestly, what the hell do you know about abortion? How does it affect you? I mean christ, your'e not living with the possibility of killing your unborn child, you'll never have to make that decision, well you could, but your'e not going to carry the kid.

I'm a virgin, but I have known a person that has had 2 abortions so far. She's 20 or so. I really dislike her now because of it. What bothers me even more is she has a dog now, after the abortion, that she treats like a little baby. I'm not going to allow my personal believes alter laws that will change something that others may not believe in. That is why I'm pro-choice. A choice is still a choice, it's not definite whether the person is going to have an abortion or go along and have the baby.

At 8/17/04 01:05 PM, Subtle_Seductress wrote: Not being rude just trying to put a different female spin on this.

Not rude at all, and thanks for expressing what you think of it.

I'll agree with the person that was talking about the cerebral cortex. If you look at the difference between a pig fetus and a human fetus, there is very little difference. Actually, they have a science about evolution based on the development of the embryo. The more similar, the less time the species branched off from another. Cerebral cortex is the only thing that makes us different from other species. Many have fingers, legs, arms, hearts, livers, and all of the other vital organs. They even use pig valves in human hearts. So the fetus becomes a true human when it's capability to think has been developed. That is in the 6th month if the person was correct about it.

The problem with allowing stem cell research through aborted fetuses is the possibility of the creation of an abortion market. The people will get pregnant just to get a couple bucks to sell the aborted fetuses for research. This should be outlawed, the aborted fetuses should only be free because if they paid money, then the original intention of the abortion changes.